Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
IV. Book Videos/Trailers
>
what don't u like when a book is turned into a movie
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tamara
(new)
Apr 11, 2013 03:00PM
they take out things, i don't like that
reply
|
flag
I'm with you on that Tamara. Case in point "Harry Potter; The Prisoner of Azkaban" I read the book first, couldn't wait for movie and came out of the theatre wondering what just happened! I hope they don't do that to my book.
When it looks different in my own head. I see the movie and think - "her dress wasn't blue!" Or, the walls were supposed to be white, not green!" Besides the visuals, movies are too short. Even the best actors can't pull off the kinds of thoughts that words can.
Oh, I could rant about this for a long time! My biggest pet peeve about book to movie adaptations is when they add stuff that was NOT in the book! Or leave out really critical stuff that was in the book. One of the things that irritated me most with the Harry Potter films (the last 2) was that Harry was suddenly "attuned" to the horcruxes. LIke they were calling to him. Urgh! Would have loved to have seen the memories in the pensieve of tom Riddle's family and childhood. I know there is only so much time allotted in a movie but COME ON! Another example: cave scene, Hunger Games. Enough said. Worst book to movie adaptation ever was Percy Jackson. can't believe they had the gaul to make another one!
One of the wonderful aspects of this site is that people in the business of making movies actually read your comments. I sure hope they read these; maybe they'll put more effort into authenticity the next time they get behind the camera.
It annoys me when they mess with aspects of a character's... er... character. Like when they made Aragorn and Theoden sort of at odds/Theoden was suspicious of Aragorn trying to usurp his authority (not in the books at all), or when Peter is all, "I'm the high king" to Caspian in the newest iteration of the movie (also not in the books).
I hate when they change the end to make it more 'Hollywood.' Life doesn't always have a happy ending. I loved what they did with The Mist. While the overall movie wasn't phenomenal, they changed the end and actually made it more brutal and horrific than the original King story.
I hate it when they change stuff. Sure, I understand that you often have to leave stuff out to cram the whole book into a two hour movie, but it bugs me when the Hollywood writers feel they need to change a scene to try to make it more exciting for the big screen. On the whole, I think movie people should write their own stories and quit ruining good books!
I'm with u all, i kind of wish book and movies could just stay the same
Try to keep in mind that people making movies are making movies, not $60 million book trailers. They need to cut and rearrange and add in order to turn out a film that someone in Russia or China who hasn't read the book will want to go see.Adding to the problem is that everyone who reads a book sees its characters and settings differently, thinks different plot points are more important, and has their own ideas about what the movie should be. No matter how faithful the adaptation is, some number of the book's fans will be disappointed. So if they're going to be bashed for anything they do anyway, the producers might as well do whatever's needed to make a good movie.
Books and movies cannot "stay the same." They're two entirely different art forms.
Now, books to mini-series can be good. I'm not talking TV shows like True Blood. More like Mists of Avalon or Pride and Prejudice.
Lance wrote: " They need to cut and rearrange and add in order to turn out a film that someone in Russia or China who hasn't read the book will want to go see."Lance, why is the choice of these two particular countries?
Abigail wrote: "Now, books to mini-series can be good. I'm not talking TV shows like True Blood. More like Mists of Avalon or Pride and Prejudice."Took the words right out of my mouth. Game of Thrones translated very well to TV. Not perfectly of course, but it's close enough to keep me more or less satisfied.
The Harry Potter films on the other hand, I don't have the slightest inclination to catch up on. The last one I saw was #2. I don't dislike the movies; they're perfectly fine. I just like the books (and my visualization of them) much better, that's all.
This may be a silly comment, but why go see a movie adapted from a book in the first place? There is NO greater movie than your imagination! Go see a movie not based on a loose version of a potentially true story, but one that is a complete fabrication. That way no one is disappointed. Nothing will, in the forseeable future, equal what you see in your minds eye.
I love movies as much as I love books (just as I love writing screenplays as much as I love writing novels). Speaking as a person who has written a few adaptations, I must express the difficulties that come with turning a novel into a script. Think of it as disassembling a jigsaw puzzle then scrambling the pieces and figuring out a way to reassemble the puzzle using a quarter or a third of the pieces. Also, screenwriters only have the camera's eye to work with, and sometimes that means some SP scenes must be written with an entirely different approach than those written by the novelist.
Leigh wrote: "I love movies as much as I love books (just as I love writing screenplays as much as I love writing novels). Speaking as a person who has written a few adaptations, I must express the difficulties..." Thank you for your explanation of why movies are somewhat different from the book. I see that you are a screen writer, take a look at my true story, "The Little Coat"; shouldn't have to make any changes for screen, it all really happened!
Marina wrote: "Lance, why is the choice of these two particular countries?"Because they're two of the fastest-growing markets for Hollywood movies. In general, most high-grossing, big-studio American movies now make more at the box office overseas than they do in the U.S.
The latest movie by Bras Pitt, World War Z, has been modified for the Chinese market, since they didn't like the virus originating in China. And Hollywood is desperate to kowtow to them since it's big business.Aside from that, there's no way you can fit a book into a 2 hour movie. I agree with Leigh, things have to be trimmed down drastically. Sometimes Hollywood gets it right, others not. Mrs Doubtfire, for example, isn't the most amazing book, but my personal opinion is the movie was very entertaining. Lord of the Rings book has some really slow, heavy patches and even an entire chapter that made me wonder what the relevance to the story was. I believe movies are an opportunity for writers to learn by analysing why certain things have been chopped.
Tamara wrote: "they do?"U.S./Canada box office take was only 31% of global box office in 2012. The two dominant producers of films (by number) distributed internationally are the U.S. and India.
Here are the numbers, courtesy of the MPAA: http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/3037b7a....
This is a tough one because everybody interprets in their own head how things look and characters act in a book differently. I've seen adaptions of books into graphic novels and nothing ever looks the way I'd pictured it and I've seen new adaptions of these stories done graphically and things look totally different than the last adaption. Which is what I think has given birth to all these movie remakes. The only book into movie that I was a little let down with lately was the Percy Jackson movie. I didn't think the changes they made helped the story's strenghth and effect on people and it made possible sequels almost impossible. Riordan was connected to this movie while it was being made which is even more surprising that that much was changed.
Steven wrote: "This is a tough one because everybody interprets in their own head how things look and characters act in a book differently..."Definitely. In another GR group, there was a very heated debate about Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher. Thirty-three other actors were mentioned as being the "perfect" Reacher, running the gamut from Matt Damon to Dolph Lundgren, ranging in age from 29 to 68, and ranging in height from 5'9" to 6'6". These were mooted by serious Reacher fans. Imagine the poor Hollywood casting director trying to satisfy this broad spectrum of opinion.
a running joke between me and a friend are Taylor Lautner's casting as the main character in Incarceron. The whole book takes place in a dark prison, so we think it's quite humerous that they chose someone with such WHITE teeth to play him. We figure that's how he'll find his way around in the dark. :)
Lance wrote: "Steven wrote: " In another GR group, there was a very heated debate about Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher."I saw this topic in my e-mail notifications and the first thing that came to mind was the mis-casting of Little Tommy as Jack Reacher. I scrolled to the end of the thread to put my two cents in...but you beat me to it. Good call.
A book would be better served by a miniseries than a 2 hour movie, but even then, there is only so much you can fit in to a 10 hour miniseries. That's why I refuse to read any Game of Thrones books, in favour of enjoying the series instead. My sister has read the books and sometimes mentions how much has been skipped over and changed. I understand the reasons why it needs to be done, but it still annoys me.
Lord of the Rings was the only movie I forgave for the departures from the book, because the visuals in the movie were so true to the spirit of the book.
It's the classic rock versus hard place though. If you watch the movie/show first then you don't know what has been hacked away, but if you do read the book afterwards then your imagination is limited and guided by what you've already seen. And if you read the book first then the movie/show will almost never live up to your expectations and you don't enjoy it as much as you could.
I guess this is me stating the obvious? :P
Neil wrote: "That's why I refuse to read any Game of Thrones book..."You could always leave the theme music playing as you read.
Alan wrote: "This may be a silly comment, but why go see a movie adapted from a book in the first place? There is NO greater movie than your imagination! Go see a movie not based on a loose version of a potenti..."I absolutely agree with your comment, Alan... not silly at all! I likewise agree with Amy (comment 3), who says basically the same thing, but with more of the mental conversation that I always had when I'd read a book before I see the movie. Now, as you ask, I just don't go to many movies anymore, and certainly not to ones made from books I've read.
I hate when they take a major scene from a book and keep it out of the movie or the movie isn't anything like the book whatsoever. I mean characters and places can't be the only thing you take from a book and put into a movie, you need the basis and plot which is the whole idea in the movie as well! Sometimes they think they are doing the right thing in making major changes but for those who loved the book want to relate to the book when they watch the movie and if that doesn't happen then people are left disappointed.
The best book to movie adaptions are the ones where the author of the book wrote the script, such as Perks of being a wallflower. Stephen Chbosky wrote the book, wrote the script, and directed the movie hence it was almost word for word from the book and was exactly the way the author envisioned it. Then there is another recent book to movie adaption; Percy Jackson. Quite frankly I couldn't stand the movie. I loved the books and I was horrified by what they did to it in the movie. I heard Rick Riordan refuses to even watch it because he knows they ruined it. And that is sad.
